Litchfield v. The Register and Receiver was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a patentee was entitled to a patent for an invention that had already been patented by another party. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Litchfield and the Register and Receiver, over a patent for a machine for making paper. Litchfield had applied for a patent for the machine, but the Register and Receiver had already granted a patent to another party for the same invention. The Supreme Court held that Litchfield was not entitled to a patent for the invention because the invention had already been patented by another party. The Court reasoned that the patent system was designed to protect inventors from having their inventions stolen or copied, and that granting a patent to Litchfield would undermine the purpose of the patent system. The Court also noted that the patent system was intended to encourage innovation, and that granting a patent to Litchfield would discourage innovation by allowing him to reap the rewards of another party's invention. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that Litchfield was not entitled to a patent for the invention because it had already been patented by another party. The Court's decision established the principle that a patentee is not entitled to a patent for an invention that has already been patented by another party. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and is still an important part of patent law today.

In Litchfield v. The Register and Receiver, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a patentee of public land could bring an action against the register and receiver for damages caused by their negligence in failing to record his deed. Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion, arguing that although Congress had not expressly authorized such an action, it should be implied from its general power over public lands. He argued that allowing suits against officers of the government would help ensure they properly performed their duties and protect citizens from any wrongs committed by them while acting within their official capacity. Furthermore, he noted that if Congress did not intend for this type of suit to be allowed then it would have explicitly prohibited it rather than remain silent on the matter as it had done here. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that since no express prohibition existed preventing such actions being brought against officers of the government then one should be implied in order to provide justice for those who were wronged due to negligent acts or omissions made within their official capacity.